Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Decolonization in Africa
Decolonization in Africa
Decolonization in Africa
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The end of the Second World War marked the beginning of the end for the British and French empires. Due to its weakened positions and the emergence of two new ‘anti-colonial’ superpowers, Britain eventually lost its colonies in Africa, India, and her influence in the Middle East. France also lost its colonies in West and North Africa, as well as Indo-China. This period marked ‘the end not just of formal colonial rule, but of the era of European dominance, and of the very idea of empire’ The Second World War had left both countries in a very weak and vulnerable position, Britain being exhausted physically and France psychologically as well as physically after the humiliation of defeat and occupation by Nazi Germany, and their global standing severely weakened. With this, they had to face the challenge of maintaining authority over the colonial people who were increasingly opposed to domination by the European powers. After fighting alongside them to free countries under the Axis Powers control, the colonial people now wanted their own freedom. Although occurring over a similar time period and in similar regions, the two countries dealt with decolonisation very differently, with French decolonisation occurring much later and much less peaceful than British decolonisation.
The decolonisation of the two empires was not a reality in the immediate aftermath of the war. Although the war was catalyst for decolonisation, both Britain and France initially hoped to be able to re-establish their empires once more after the war had ended. Britain hoped to maintain her status as a global world power in the face of the emergence of two new superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union, both with anti-colonial agendas. Despite being a part of the...
... middle of paper ...
...he US and the USSR, but decolonised out of their own interest. For Britain, the Suez crises lead to the empire becoming a burden on the pound, and to avoid bankruptcy, Britain accelerated the process of decolonisation, realising that that nuclear warfare was the real show of greatness. With France, although the FLN played a major role, the crises in France over the issue of decolonisation meant it was impossible for France to cling on to Algeria. Even De Gaulle declared that decolonisation was in France’s interest, an admission of the impossibility without more expense and bloodshed. France became exhausted rather than converted. With both countries having different reasons to decolonise, it was ultimately both countries view of colonialism that decided what experience of decolonisation they would have, with Frances experiences being much bloodier than the British.
Algeria had revolted against the French colonies many times, but did not succeed with overthrowing them. Under the French rule
In Todd Shepard’s work Voices of Decolonization, the featured documents provide keen insight into the geopolitical environment of the era of decolonization (1945-1965) and the external and internal pressures on the relationships between colonial nations and the territories that they held dominion over (Shepard 10). Decolonization is the result of a combination of national self-determination and the establishment of functional international institutions composed of independent sovereign nations united towards common goals. As decolonization progressed, it intersected with points of significant sociopolitical tension between colonies and the nations that colonized them. Some of these moments of tension came in the form of progressive ideals held by international agencies which colonial nations were allied with, the revolt of colonized populations against their standing government in favor of independence, and in moral and political conflicts that arose when decolonization takes a form unexpected or undesired by the primary agents of progressive international institutions.
However, French lost its territory to the Spanish and the British, but most of France’s colonial wealth were extracted from their colonies in Africa, especially from its vast wealth of gold and diamond. “Like the Spanish the French preferred to rule their colonies under a direct rule, which urge more metropole culture spread upon colonized land. While Spanish colonial cities have plazas, the French colonial cities have Paris grid town planning and architecture that often remind one of France. They also introduced education system using French language, to help further brainwash and spread their own value” (Quora). “The French also wanted to spread their “French value” to its subject as part of their “civilizing” mission, to bless the barbaric of indigenous Africans and Asians with enlightenment (admittedly they were less successful than Americans, but did manage to spread the French language all over Africa)” (Quora). While Africa became more “France”, this failed in Indochina because the locals find French difficult to learn. The Africa colonization was pure and simple, to benefit the metropole at most while limiting the development of industry as to make Africa reliant on European
Great Britain emerged from the Treaty of Paris triumphant; France had been chased out of most of North America and Britain had won control of the eastern third of the continent. However, while the war was a military success, its effects caused trouble for Britain and its American colonies. The war had altered the political and economic landscape, and the changes opened an ideological divide between the two peoples that caused the Colonists to question their ties to Britain. So while the French and Indian War was a success militarily for Great Britain, it brought about the beginnings of the American Revolution.
After the French and Indian war Great Britain and its American colonist were able to have peace for the time because of the elimination of the French and Indian threat. French removed itself off the
The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.” (p.20-21) As a result of the war, Russia was severely weakened, which greatly upset the balance of power in Europe. Taylor claims that, “What gave France independence as a ...
As almost anyone with the slightest knowledge of European history can tell you, the French and the British do not like each other. Some French and British people still hate each other today for issues that occurred 100 of years ago. So on top of the conflict that is already present between France and Great Britain there is a new one in the pursuit of gaining more land and power for one’s cou...
WWII has a ripple effect across the globe causing changes both internationally and domestically. Internationally, The sun finally began to set over the British Empire with the majority of her majesties colonial possessions gaining independence in the years following the war. Britain’s stage left exit from its hegemonic role resulted in the start of a new “Great Game” between two burgeoning superpowers. A new world order began to take shape with the United States and USSR vying to establish their own hegemony.
Throughout the 1700s, the relationship between Britain and their colonies became more tension filled. The new generations of colonists felt more entitled to certain rights and liberties that had been considered privileges to their ancestors. Over the years Britain had been becoming progressively worse at keeping their colonies happy. Eventually, colonists did not even feel incorporated in their mother country, Britain. The deterioration of British colonial relations in the late 1700s was caused by a lack of representation and care from Britain.
The definition of decolonization differs from person to person, from nation to nation, and from past experience to past experience. In my opinion decolonization is a thought out active resistance of colonial forces with a goal of eventually obtaining indigenous liberation. Colonialism has brought forth many problems with it. As more time passes the problems keep getting worse. Problems such as crimes being committed on Natives and loss of tradition.
...s that was bound to occur anyways due to strong nationalism. Even though it may look as if the Suez Crisis is directly responsible for the independence of some colonies, these colonies had ideas of nationalization for a long time but achieved it after a few years. As Britain was preoccupied with the Suez Crisis, these colonies saw it as an opportunity to demand independence. Furthermore, Britain’s imperial status was weakened tremendously because the Suez crisis proved that Britain needed America’s support and approval in foreign relations. It is still debated whether Britain is still a global power or lost its authority since the events of the 20th century, but it is a fact that Britain lost a tremendous amount of power since its peak of power during the 19th century. The Suez Crisis is one out of such countless events that contributed to Britain’s loss of power.
Paalz, Mike. "World War II as the Trigger for African Decolonization." Yahoo Contributor Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
De Gaulle's foreign policy was possibly one of his most controversial legacies. He returned to power in 1958 with the determination to elevate France to a prominent international role. De Gaulle’s ultimate goal was to re-establish France’s standing as a first rate power that in the words of one historian, exemplified “independence and grandeur.” In his war memoirs, de Gaulle presented ‘une certain idée de la France’, it was his belief that France had a great destiny to fulfil: ‘All my life, I have thought of France in a certain way … France is not really herself unless in the front rank … Only vast enterprises are capable of counterbalancing the ferments of dispersal which are inherent in her people … In short, to my mind, France cannot be France without greatness’. This vision was the foundation of his foreign and defence policies.
France and England, for several reasons, were usually on opposite ends of the historical spectrum. Although each suffered from some of the same political, philosophical and Ideological symptoms, the same could be said concerning their growth and accomplishments. While France evolved from a country ruled and driven by a monarchy handcuffed with religious restrictions, England, with similar components in place, transformed into a completely different state. I believe, because of England’s geographical location and not being invaded or conquered, the isolation shaped its foreign policies to reflect a free and pure state of mind; however, I think proximity dictated foreign policy for all of the countries of that time and place. Which begs the question: If England and France were to switch their locations on the continent, would the English try to conquer Central Europe, North Africa and Russia? I will compare the two countries by listing historically significant events and how internal and external forces influenced each countries foreign policy.
The process of decolonization in Africa during the 1950’s through the 1970’s was a very smart yet risky idea. For some places independence was easily gained yet in other areas it was a battle. During the time periods where colonization existed, Africa was peaceful and kept things in order. People had control over their specific locations and there were no questions to be asked. Once it was decided to remove these rights, things got out of hand rather quickly. Violence was a main occurrence during the decolonization timeframe because rules, rights, leaderships, etc. got altered and drastically changed. Sometimes nonviolence was used but it usually wasn’t as effective. A major example of using nonviolence actions to gain independence is when Gandhi protested in India. African leaders have tried very hard to lessen the influence of Western powers and the broader international community but they’ve never been completely successful because they continuously needed support in state building, economic development, and public health initiatives.